At the end of August, the U.K. government took the decision to fold the UK Space Agency (UKSA) into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). UKSA was created in 2010, reflecting the understanding that the space sector was becoming increasingly important to the economy. During its tenure, the British astronaut Tim Peake was sent into space to work on the International Space Station; Britain began to develop the means to launch small satellites and other small payloads from Scotland; and the space sector came to generate an estimated £18.6 billion ($25.3 billion) a year — making it responsible for roughly one-fifth of GDP — to the economy. So when the government announced the decision on its website as “U.K. space sector bolstered with government reforms to boost growth and cut red tape,” some of us had questions.
Maybe it was the sense of déjà vu. When the U.K. scrapped its national satellite launch program in the 1970s, it set the country back decades. The Black Arrow program produced a small orbital launch vehicle which successfully put the satellite Prospero in orbit in October 1971. Shortly before the launch, the government had already decided to cut the program, citing cost; it would be cheaper, said the government, simply to ‘buy launches’ from the United States. The result was that Britain became (and remains) the only country ever to have developed an indigenous orbital launch system and then abandoned it. Other nations — France, Japan, India — have acquired that ability, and continued to develop and maintain it. It’s not an accident that their aerospace industries have become major global players.
That was then, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume that something similar will happen. But it’s a useful analogy, because it illustrates both how shorter-term considerations can play out in the long term, and also how important space has proven itself to be. In fact it’s hard to overstate the importance of space to modern life. It underpins our defence, climate monitoring, telecommunications, banking. The sector supports more than 50,000 jobs. Conscious of the absolute centrality of space to the economy, the European Space Agency (ESA) is at this moment approving record budgets. China is increasing its own expenditure by six times, and India is confidently creating a timeline for the creation of its own space station. Confronted with a range of challenges, from a shifting geopolitical landscape to the ongoing threat posed by climate change, the risk here is that Britain, intentionally or not, goes in the opposite direction by pulling its agency back inside the government.
I don’t want to suggest that this decision was taken lightly. And there are compelling arguments in support for bringing the UKSA into the fold of the DSIT. But there are still real risks to doing so. First among these concerns the loss of the UKSA’s independence. As an independent entity, it’s been able to speak with clarity and authority on its own behalf and behalf of the sector. That autonomy has signalled to the world that the U.K. takes space seriously — seriously enough to grant the sector its own decision-making power and a means of self-coordination and self-governance. As a communications professional, I’m conscious of how much image you present to the world matters. The government, I’m sure, is taking space as seriously as it was before — perhaps even more seriously. But it doesn’t look that way, and that has repercussions.
There are other potential pitfalls. One is that instead of creating and executing long-term strategies aimed at making the U.K. a genuine space power, U.K. space will become just another Whitehall department, at the mercy of changing political priorities. Responsibilities could be muddled. Opacity could replace transparency. Bureaucracy has long hampered U.K. space (this was cited as one reason for the decision to make UKSA part of the DSIT). But now it could get worse, rather than better.
A further concern relates to the message this sends domestically. Any young person eager to push the boundaries of what’s possible in fields like Earth observation, quantum, photonics, satellite hardware development or materials science, may now be left with the impression that the U.K. isn’t serious about space, or isn’t as serious as it was. Not everyone reads the small print: all they see is the scrapping of the UKSA. France, Germany, Italy, the U.S., Spain, Portugal, and countless other countries have their own space agencies. Why not the U.K.? The risk is that our best and brightest come to think that Luxembourg, or Lithuania, or Finland, or France — all countries that have signalled their ambition in space and taken meaningful steps to create the conditions for its flourishing — might be a better place to work.
Right now, the United States and China are vying for space supremacy. India is coming on in leaps and strides. The countries of the Gulf, not known historically for their presence in space, have become genuine space powers. The 55 nations of the African Union have just inaugurated the African Space Agency. As for Europe, it remains determined to achieve the “strategic autonomy” it has wanted for over a decade, and sees space as a crucial factor in its realization. It’s acting accordingly. By abolishing its space agency, and therefore abolishing the independence of U.K. space, Britain risks being seen to deprioritize this crucial sector, weakening its relationships and credibility, and putting off young scientists and engineers.
It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that this move could work out. Only time will tell. In the meantime, space operators and onlookers should keep a close eye on the fate of the sector with UKSA part of DSIT. Meanwhile, space entrepreneurs and space company leaders should see this as a chance to show leadership at home, and to show those abroad that Britain is still serious about space. Because U.K. space is awash with talent. It is no exaggeration to say we have some of the finest minds in this area in the world. But the fact remains: with this move, we risk limiting that talent, pushing it away, or denying it the support it needs.
Victoria Pearson is the co-founder and managing director of the communications consultancy Sonder London.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these opinion articles are solely those of the authors.
Related